Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioners,
- versus -
Respondent.
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
ARTICLE V
SALARY INCREASE
ARTICLE VI
Reviewing the records of this case and the law relative to the
issues at hand, we came to the conclusion that it was an error
on [the] part of [DEL PILAR] not to have collected agency fee
due other workers who are non-union members but are
included in the bargaining unit being represented by [the
UNION]. True enough as was correctly quoted by [the UNION]
Art. 248, to wit:
All told while there was error on [the] part of [DEL PILAR] for
the first issue, [it] came through in the second. But as it is, we
do not believe that a finding of unfair labor practice can be had
considering the lack of evidence on record that said acts were
done to undermine the union or stifle the member’s right to
self organization or that the [petitioners] were in bad faith. If
at all, it’s (sic) error may have been the result of a mistaken
notion that individual check-off authorization is needed for it to
be able to validly and legally deduct assessment especially
after individual[s] concerned registered their objection. On the
other hand, it is not error to negotiate for a better term in the
CBA. So long as [the] parties will agree. It must be noted that
a CBA is a contract between labor and management and is not
simply a litany of benefits for labor. Moreso, for unfair labor
practice to prosper, there must be a clear showing of acts
aimed at stifling the worker’s right to self-organization. Mere
allegations and mistake notions would not suffice.
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the charge of unfair labor
practice is hereby Dismissed for want of basis.
SO ORDERED.[5]
DEL PILAR admitted its failure to deduct the agency fees from
the salaries of non-union employees, but justifies the non-
deduction by the absence of individual written authorization. It
posits that Article 248(e) is inapplicable considering that its
employees derived no benefits from the CBA. The annual
salary increase of its employee is a benefit mandated by law,
and not derived from the CBA. According to DEL PILAR, the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) required
all educational institutions to allocate at least 70% of tuition
fee increases for the salaries and other benefits of teaching
and non-teaching personnel; that even prior to the execution
of the CBA in September 1994, DEL PILAR was already granting
annual salary increases to its employees. Besides, the non-
union employees objected to the deduction; hence, a written
authorization is indispensable to effect a valid check off. DEL
PILAR urges this Court to reverse the CA ruling insofar as it
ordered the deduction of agency fees from the salaries of non-
union employees, arguing that such conclusion proceeds from
a misplaced premise that the salary increase arose from the
CBA.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
xxxx